tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News January 4, 2018 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
see more on "the story" at foxnews.com. i will see you on "outnumbered" at noon. thanks for joining us. tucker is up next. ♪ >> tucker: good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." congressman keith nelson, kind of a big deal in washington, in fact, he is the number two man in the democratic party. in a recent tweet, he openly supports the violent antifa movement. we took a pause to take a closer look and what we found this interesting, and we've got it. just ahead. ahead. first tonight, it is full-scale war between president trump and a man who just months ago was seen as one of his closest allies and advisors. yesterday, trump said that steve bannon had "lost his mind"
after being canned from the white house back in august. now the president issuing legal threats against bannon. bannon got a letter threatening a lawsuit for alleged violations of a confidentiality agreement he allegedly signed. what to make of all of this? a lot of people claiming to be experts on the trump white house, very few are. this one actually is. he has been advising trump for more than three decades. he lobbied for him in the 1990s. he was campaign manager of his aborted 2000 presidential run. stone was one of the people that urge the president to run for office this time, and he served on the campaign during its critical early months. trump has fired stone more than once, maybe a bunch of times, and called him a stone had been called loser, but their relationship has always recovered. if anyone can truly claim to understand the president, i think it would be roger stone. roger, thanks for coming on. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: so what is this fundamentally about.
from an outsiders perspective, it appears to be a debate about who can take credit for the unexpected win in 2016 2016. steve bannon has taken credit for that. the president believes he did i it. to what extent did bannon contribute to the victory? >> well, i wanted to give steve bannon the credit benefit of the doubt, particularly given the reputation of michael wolfft given the comments that steve bannon made while in the white house, it is a stunning act of betrayal, and it is also a complete misunderstanding of donald trump. and in donald trump's world, in trump world, there is no karl rove. donald trump is very much his own world. his his own man, his own strategist, his own speechwriter, his own press secretary, it may be the greatest single salesman in
american history. and the president's agenda on which he was elected, i should say's platform, was determined long before steve bannon joined the campaign it was determined one man, donald trump. he is a phenomena, a force of nature, but he cannot be handled or managed, he's not a puppet, and he never will be. >> tucker: bannon argues that he put trump's impulses within a framework that allowed him to erect. i knew bannon from another life when we ran rival publications. i can't assess his skill as a political strategist. is he a political genus and campaigns are no? >> i would argue it is donald trump was a political genius. here is somebody who overcame enormous odds, massively outspent, and scores one of the great upset come-from-behind victory as in american political history. now, the trump five for well settled on long before
steve bannon joined the campaig campaign. and it appears that stephen miller helped the president articulated. but the agenda is trump, the drive to win is trump. the populist campaign is all trump. just taking the title of chief strategist is a misnomer, at best. >> tucker: . the idea was that, after the campaign, bannon was kind of a living conscious of the white house, the reminder of what the campaign was about anda leader of this movement, this conservative movement. why have so few conservatives publicly defended steve bannon in the last 24 hours? he is being attacked. why is that? >> first of all, the movement is bigger than any one person. i asked six people on the way into the fox studio here steve bannon is, none of them new. every single one knew who
donald trump was an every single one knew about his efforts to make america great again. then you'll get to the specifics. no, donald trump jr.'s meeting with a russian lawyer was not treasonous, not illegal, not improper. steve is neither a lawyer nor an experienced political strategist. that meeting is a nothing-burger. it looks more and more like a set up to meet given the fact that the russian woman lawyer was in the country illegally at the sufferance of the obama administration. so i don't really understand but would motivate safe to say those things when it is the president who has given him the opportunity for service. well, you could chalk it up to anger over being fired if he had made these comments after he was terminated, but based on my research, he said those things what he was on the trump payrol payroll. >> tucker: finally, why the legal threats?
i don't think anyone believes the president is going to sue steve bannon for violating an nda or the author of this book. doesn't this just call attention to the book, help sell books? isn't it down to the benefit of the author? why would you instruct your lawyers to do something like that? >> i'm not sure about the efficacy. the trump base will stick with donald trump as long as he keeps faith with them on his agenda. the biggest tax cut in american history. a solid conservative on the u.s. supreme court. cutting regulations at all levels. that is the trump agenda. >> tucker: i'm not sure about the efficacy of that, that's my new favorite phrase. roger, great to see you. >> great to be here tucker. many thanks. >> tucker: meanwhile, the hits keep coming for lisa bloom. a report says, the liberal super pac american bridge for
some reason. lisa bloom $200,000 to do solicit sexual misconduct allegations against donald trump. huh. we have somewhat of an expert on ethics who joins us tonight. i don't know if you are a professional ethicist or not. i don't know if you are representing the bar association. what am i to make of lisa bloom taking $200,000 in order to dig up dirt on a political candidate? >> i would bet i was, and i'm not sure which lisa bloom and her mother belong to. but there are different incentives at work here. and more than almost any other profession, it owes the client more than any other, and when you have a set of these two are engaged in where they have been fishing, essentially, for stooges that they can put up aso
damage the president so they can set their press conferences, as they've been doing for most of their lives, then i think there is actually something malodorous about it. >> tucker: it bothers me, if she were a political consultant or a conventional slip-anti-fall consultant, you know what you are getting paid but she poses as and is represented as some sort of moral leader who is fighting on behalf of things that are good and true, late against darkness, but she is totally cynical transactional sleazy lawyer. >> you mentioned a couple of weeks ago, tucker, she was originally harvey weinstein's lawyer. and then they fell out and she was no longer his lawyer. i don't have a problem with that because i think it is sometimes helpful. i have done this myself. to have a lawyer who is not on your side ideologically and
actually it just looks at the case from the point of the law. it's sometimes actually helpful. as might be helpful to have a feminist lawyer actually representing a scummy sleaze bag who assaults women. everybody is entitled to a good defense. what made it sleazy is that she had a book deal with harvey weinstein. he was making a television production of her book. that is sleazy. there are ethical rules determining when lawyers embark on business relationships with their clients, and if you look at lisa bloom and her mother, for example, one of the reasons they are raising money, one of the aspects of this, if they manage to place an interview with a television network that pays for the interview, the lawyer gets a third of the fee is a commission. now, that is a lawyer serving as an agent, and it may well not be
in the client's interest, particularly if you are just some ordinary woman who happens to have been six sexually assaulted by a powerful man. it may not be in your interest to be going on television, becoming a famous person when, in the end, lisa bloom goes on to the next client and you are living with the consequences of having become a briefly famous person but still with no money or celebrity or enduring thing to show for it. that is not in the client's interest. >> tucker: just a parasite like so many lawyers. can we agree that in the end that i don't have to take any more moral lectures from lisa bloom? >> oh, no. absolutely. what is interesting to me about this is, she is explicitly saying that she wants money to help take down the president. you are not giving to a pac,
you're not giving to a cause, you are basically enriching lisa bloom to advance her political objectives. as you said, the particular women in this issue, in this case, are essentially just ventriloquist puppets. sheet sticks the hand up the back of the dress and makes them say what they say. as you said a couple of minutes ago. as long as i can remember, i have switched on the tv, and lisa bloom or her mother has been sitting there next to a woman to whom something bad has happened, and you never hear from the woman again, and lisa bloom are on to riches and riches and riches. >> tucker: the only woman lisa bloom is helping is lisa bloom. great to see you. >> thanks a lot, tucker. >> tucker: the latest wave of emails from anthony weiner, remember him, he is imprisoned now, and his former wife,
huma abedin's, a former laptop has come off. five more classified messages that should not have been there. we know of 18 of those that were on the laptop. tom fitton is president of judicial watch, secured the release of these. tom, how hard is it to get these? >> it only took two years. [laughter] federal lawsuit. the fbi found these records last back in october when james kobe famously announced at a press conference there were other documents on the weiner laptop. >> tucker: release the personal property of huma abedin and anthony reeder? or they with a government prop? >> they determined they were government records and they were turned over to the state department. >> tucker: why did you have to wait two years to get them? >> we found out about clinton's email server back in 2015, huma abedin had an email account on that server, we asked her for the emails, they eventually found some of the more
additional emails on these to be 27 laptop. again, classified records that james comey and his colleagues at the fbi knew were on the weiner laptop but didn't take seriously enough to pursue criminal charges against abedin or clinton for allowing this egregious abuse of trust that they had placed in them for allowing that to be abused. >> tucker: since you have been in washington for a long time in public cases like this for a long time, give us some perspective. if you had this many classified documents on your laptop, what with the consequences be? >> well, he would lose their security clearance almost initially, and he would be subject to a criminal investigation and perhaps prosecution. and it wasn't just the low-level classified materials that were found in the clinton email server, but there were a highly top-secret documents of the most secure type, and it would have resulted in criminal prosecution, i guarantee you, if you or anybody else.
4.5 million people with security clearance. they all know this was a scam the way hillary clinton and huma abedin have been protected. this is why it is interesting to see the justice department, as reported today, is actually real looking at this issue finally. the pressure is working, tucker. the justice department is going to go back and ask some questions about the comey, lynch, how they handle this last year, about the decision to prosecute and things like that, and is well past time that took place. >> tucker: so a system that crushes ordinary people protects the powerful and well-connected. >> about it. right now, we are fighting over whether they are even going to do a damage assessment over heaven classified material, as i say, on the internet equivalent of a public park bench. >> tucker: unbelievable.
tom fitton, thank you. well, keith ellison, congressman from minnesota, also the deputy chairman of the dnc, just endorsed a book that promotes vigilante violence and antifa. we'll tell you more about it and ellison's long history of extremism and issues. next. lers won't stop him. and neither will lower back pain. because at a dr. scholl's kiosk he got a recommendation for our custom fit orthotic to relieve his foot, knee, or lower back pain, from being on his feet. dr. scholl's. born to move.
grassroots. he deserves to be regarded as one of the democratic party's top thought leaders, such as they are. yesterday, ellison tweeted this. at moon palace books, i just found a book that will strike fear in the heart of donald trump's heart. the book he was talking about, "antifa: the anti-fascist handbook." buy with that book strike fear into the heart of the president of the united states? maybe because that book advocates for political violence against people like donald trump and his supporters. the author is an man named mark greg. "a small though vital sliver of antifascist activity." elsewhere in the text, he approvingly quotes an anti- -- "you fight them with knives you don't have to fight them with guns. you fight them with guns so you don't have to fight them with tanks." that is about as explicit a justification for political
violence as there is. he also attacks the speech endorses the tactic of silencing those he doesn't agree with. of course, bray claims to fight fascism. keith ellison finds his work admirable. he said so. if you are shocked by this, you haven't followed ellison's career for him. he has a history of backing repugnant things. he wrote that the constitution existed only for white people. he referred to it as "fair" constitution, calling it "a conspiracy to subjugate other people's." ellison has spoken favorably of popular. he said he was "praying that fidel castro's communist regime in cuba would not be forced to extradite her back to the united states." as a loss to it ellison wrote a column calling for the creation for a separate black as no state. this is the man that is now second in command of in terra
democratic party. that ought to bother republicans and independence. it should terrified -- most don't support killing, racial separatism, abolishing freedom of speech, and attempt to flee from politicians and parties that do support those things. democrats at this point assume they are going to make major gains in this year's midterm elections purely on the strength of the president's poll numbers. they are happy to ignore haters like keith ellison. ellison opposes trump and that is enough for now. but what would happen if democrats actually did win and got power back in november? suddenly ellison's views would matter a lot. he and people like him would have real control over your life. are you ready for that? keith ellison's personal radicalism fits into another troubling trend on the left that has massive implications for the country and for you. last time we talked to journalist chad mcmorran about how, on the left, and the name of fighting racism, it is now common to attack people on the
basis of their race. >> if you want to see racism everywhere, if you are brainwashed to see racism everywhere or homophobia everywhere or whatever, then you will. that is the world will live in. i was having a conversation with a woman not long ago about this, a young upper-class woman, and she was talking about how badly she gets treated on the street, and i said, what if you lived for one day as a white woman and were treated the exact same way? >> tucker: a lawyer and democratic commentator. good to see a. >> good to see your. >> tucker: totally opposed to, i think -- i am 48, grew up in a country we had to be, and most people i knew were, totally opposed to attacking other people on the basis of your race because you can't control your race. do not -- >> you are saying you grew up in a country where -- >> tucker: that's where i grew up. everyone said that at school. most people knew said they believed that. maybe they didn't. but you had to say that, and i believed it. i still believe that. now we live in a world where the
left still says that and yet they do it and somehow exempt themselves from the normal rules. so you are racist, but when i attack you on the basis of your race, i'm not a racist, i'm virtuous. how does that work. >> i don't know how we end up in this warped world where i end up doing the history lesson, a history i know you know. but when you say you grew up in a world where people knew it was wrong to attack others on the basis of race, i'm wondering if you were in the united states of america. >> tucker: i was. don't be -- >> i'm not -- i'm talking about the history of our country. and you should believe that. that's a good believe. but if you grew up in the united states of america, then you know that not just people's belief systems but codified laws, write, discriminate against people expressly because of their race. >> tucker: i'm fully aware of that, but i'm 48, not 78. that didn't exist where i grew
up. i'm telling you, this is true. but the point is, i believed it. i still believe it. why don't you believe it. >> we are just a year apart, and if you're saying because you're 48, not 78, are you saying that segregation, which really didn't formally end until we were already -- >> tucker: that's all i'm saying. >> if people of color have been attacked because of their race, not for decades, but for generations -- >> tucker: i agree. >> than it is really reasonable to expect that they would take issue with that and with those who have done it for generations. >> tucker: and attack them on the basis of their race? i'm missing this. >> there should never be physical attacks of any kind and there shouldn't be emotional or verbal -- >> tucker: how about just criticizing people on the basis of their race. it's not a choice you made. you shouldn't ever hold someone's race against them.
that's not his fault. that's the whole point. that is my racism is wrong, right? >> that is why exactly where rm is wrong. when you say "the left," i wonder who those people are. >> tucker: and hey site, talking about -- i'm not defending white people, i'm just saying, you should write off any group of people on the definition of their race, . >> i haven't read any articles that say, white people are this are white people are all that just on the basis of their race. if you are white and you are also a bigot, if you are white and were also a racist, then i have read many things that discuss a lack of understanding in this country -- >> tucker: you haven't heard or seen anything -- too many white guys --
i'm serious. >> too many white guys in here, tucker. >> tucker: i'm serious. >> no. that really wouldn't make sense for the past ten years, since the numbers of white males are decreasing in our country and the number of latinos, african-americans, et cetera, are increasing. i have heard people talking about that balance and how that can be scary for those who are used to being in power. >> tucker: don't patronize me. >> i'm not patronizing. >> tucker: can we agree that it is always wrong -- always, no matter who is doing it to who -- to dismiss people, attack them, judge them, on the basis of racial characteristics that they can't control. >> yes, absolutely. and those racial characteristics really are just skin. remember, race is a construct. it is a legal and social construct in the united states. ethnicity and origin are
different -- >> tucker: then why would you ever give preference in hiring or college admissions to someone solely on the basis of something you couldn't control? >> because of what we just finished talking about. >> tucker: but we just agreed it was wrong. >> i said it was wrong to attack on the basis of race. i didn't say it was wrong to help. >> tucker: you have one job in two people. and you make the decision the deciding factor is the race. one person is being hurt because it is the wrong race. why is that okay. >> because he is cutting 350, it may be years of benefit. >> tucker: do you know him? all you know about him is his race. and you are saying that he has benefited. >> exactly. >> tucker: you don't know anything about him other than other than his race peter is saying that all people of a certain color have something that is no make in common, kind
of the definition of racism. >> no, that is also the definition of discrimination, because all african-american people in united states have something in common, that they were discriminated against. >> tucker: you don't know anything about the guy. that guy in belgium yesterday. he has no connection to it. but you think it is okay to deny him something because of his color. >> i think that the system itself, in order to fix what is the one original sin of the country, it has to correct itself. i don't consider that racism at all. >> tucker: it's not racist when you do it. >> if i am in power as an african-american woman and i insist upon you walking around with one hand tied behind your back but i want you to plow a field -- >> tucker: the guy from belgium who didn't do anything, not connected in any way -- >> can i finish my analogy? >> tucker: the individual suffers but you don't consider that racism because, why?
>> it's not. the number of people in this country who have been disproportionately discriminated against for hundreds of years are such that there has to be a correction for it. >> tucker: so people have to suffer on the basis of their race? >> in this country, those people have been african-americans and other people of color people. >> tucker: people who have done nothing wrong have to suffer because people that look like them have done nothing wrong. >> i call it justice. i'm in charge now because i'm here, right? >> tucker: that sounds like collective punishment to me. >> you are probably an innocent party too, tucker, but here you are with this show and there probably are a number of similarly situated towns of african-american males who could be just as good a job or better than you. you may be getting the benefit of your race. do you think so? because if that's the only difference between you and another talented --
>> tucker: i don't think that you should punish people for things they didn't do -- >> i agree. >> tucker: and things they aren't responsible. >> it's not punishment, no, it's not. it's advancement. >> tucker: we are out of time. [laughs] i love that. >> happy new year, tucker. >> tucker: good to see you. the robots and artificial intelligence could be devastating for low skilled work in this country, and yet economic elite continued to demand more low skilled workers coming to the country. why are they doing that? we'll discuss that next. trust #1 doctor recommended dulcolax. use dulcolax tablets for gentle dependable relief. suppositories for relief in minutes. and dulcoease for comfortable relief of hard stools.
dulcolax. designed for dependable relief. when it comes to presenting evidence, nobody does it better. she's also this close to finding bigfoot. but when it comes to mortgages, she's less confident. fortunately for megan, there's rocket mortgage by quicken loans. it's simple, so she can understand the details and get approved in as few as eight minutes. apply simply. understand fully. mortgage confidently. rocket mortgage by quicken loans. ♪ ♪ there are two types of people in the world. those who fear the future... and those who embrace it. the future is for the unafraid. ♪ all because of you ♪ ♪
>> tucker: well, technology and automation are rendering low skill jobs obsolete at a frightening pace. it seems to be picking up momentum and a scary way. a report estimated that self-driving cars, robots, and artificial intelligence could eliminate up to 73 million jobs in this country by 2030, not that far from now. despite this, the bulk of america's elite are continuing to demand more low-skilled immigration into the u.s. paid 1.8 million immigrants enter this country last year, 2016. the biggest figure in american history. most of them were low-skilled workers. why is that? the ceo of the u.s. -- thanks for coming on? the surgeon and the head nurse
for both immigrants, they were both superior, great people, it did a great job, and it was a reminder that a lot of immigrants are great, but they are not all the same, and you've got to wonder, at a time when traditionally, the jobsite immigrants have traditionally done, they are going in rate at a rapid clip, why are we not adjusting our immigration policy accordingly? >> i think we should complete two separate things here. there's immigration policy, which needs to be looked at them fixed, but let's look at the facts. right now we are at about a 4% unemployment rate. that is near perfection. with that tells us is that, in fact, there aren't a lot of people walking around without a job, and what we are hearing from our clients, from the technology sector, to manufacturing, every one of our clients have more jobs than they have people to fill those jobs.
>> tucker: but the trend is really clear, low-skill jobs are going away at a faster rate than any other kind of job. so why wouldn't we say, stop. we want talented immigrants but we want people that can fill the jobs, not just in the distant future, but of the next decade. the people that are coming in are overwhelmingly low-educated people, low-skilled people, many great people, many of them probably are, but that is not a good picture at all. why are we doing that? >> tucker, i just spent four days on the west coast talking to the california strawberry growers association, triggered his is in florida talking to the florida growers association, and both cases, on both sides, theyo not have enough people. >> tucker: strawberry picking? really? let's be reasonable. i'm being serious. >> one of the most technology
advanced, actually at 4% unemployment. >> tucker: that is not a real number, as you know, and it doesn't change the fact that we are importing people who are overwhelmingly less skilled than our native population. look at the daca recipients. we hearing about, they are all military or class presidents. some of them are. but for every daca recipient in the military, two have been found to be in a gang. they are graduating high school at a much lower rate. going to college that at a mucr rate than americans. why are we doing this? >> here are the facts around daca. the daca recipients right now having 91% employment rate, better than their native-born counterparts. they are in -- they are basically disqualified from any kind of federal funding or grants of any sort when they are a daca recipients. they are paying over $2 billion in state and local taxes. >> tucker: what is the most common occupation for a daca
recipients? do you know the most common one? food preparation. being automated. my point is, why don't we have a system that gives overwhelming preference to, say, engineers, people who write code, and not preference to the relatives of people who are already here? i don't understand. a normal country would do that. >> the reality of it is, tucker, we need help on every conceivable business model in this country right now. it need skilled labor. and it runs the gamut. >> tucker: meyer the majority unskilled labor? those are the people that are coming to this country. >> tucker: why do we say we want to give preference to people who can really help our country. why aren't we doing that? >> the same as the people who are coming, in fact, they are helping the economy. >> tucker: i understand why they want to come here, it just seems like we are doing the bidding of employers that want
to have their strawberries picked cheaper and the long-term effect is really bad on the country. the rest of us are going to pay the cost of that. >> here is the sad reality of it is, when you talk to these individuals in the agricultural sector, they will tell you that they have tried to offer these jobs to native-born americans at any price, and they cannot fill those jobs. >> tucker: pay me 30 bucks, i will pick strawberries. more than 100,000 homeless people live in the state of california. we will talk to the mayor who says the state is doing everything he can to increase that number, for some reason. stay tuned. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd backed by 15 years of clinical studies.
that's why i fight. because it's my vision. preservision. that's why i fight. i have to tell you something. dad, one second i was driving and then the next... they just didn't stop and then... i'm really sorry. i wrecked the subaru. i wrecked it. you're ok. that's all that matters. (vo) a lifetime commitment to getting them home safely. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. and when you switch to esurance, in the modern world, it pays to switch things up. you can save time, worry, hassle, and yup, money. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved hundreds. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.
if sleep is essential to happiness. what's essential to sleep? introducing the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. expertly designed for support, pressure relief, cooling and bounce. read our reviews then try the leesa mattress in your own home. sleep on it for 100 nights and love it or get a full refund. order now
total. bill wells is the mayor of a town in california. he said that rather than fighting homelessness, monikers in his state are promoting homelessness. he says the homeless have learned they can commit petty crimes with impunity, which is shocking to hear. mayor wells joins us tonight. mr. mayor, think of her coming on. >> thanks for having me, tucker. >> tucker: it sounds so perverse, it is hard to believe. you say they are encouraging. how? >> encouraging, normalizing homelessness, and we have seen several laws that have come by, a.b. one oh nine reclassified 70 crimes from serious to nonserious, as result, a thousand people released from the prisons, a thousand ended up in the streets. that is just one of the many laws. >> tucker: 10% of all homeless
in california recently released prisoners? >> that's true. i should point out that aside being the mayor, i am also a mental health professional, done this work, i have a doctorate in psychology, and i worked in an inner-city e.r., and i can tell you that most of the homeless people that i ran across are involved in drugs and alcohol, and a lot of the new laws have a lot to do with that. for example, proposition 47 reclassified as many of the felonies, and senate bill 180 it made it very difficult to send people back to prison for drugs and alcohol. a lot of the homeless advocates very much want to ignore anything that has to do with hinting that some of the homeless people have drug and alcohol problems when, if you ask any police officer, probably at 90% or above in the homeless population are drug or alcohol abusers. >> tucker: it is obvious when you are there, but why would officials want to lie about something like that?
>> i think that homeless advocates really are trying to protect the system in which thel that the people who are getting these benefits are drug addicts or alcoholics, they will not qualify for these programs. >> tucker: what about the people who aren't homeless but aren't rich, you live in a neighborhood, you're excited to buy the house, all of us and you got these people living on your street. what does it do their quality of life? >> it has been terrible for the people of my city. we have seen an increase in homelessness in el cajon, but in the beach cities, over 100% increase in homelessness and many of the beach cities. this has a lot to do with methamphetamines, the increased drug production that comes from mexico. it is a terrible thing for the quality of life. >> tucker: meanwhile, cities in california are cutting down
racist trees. the real problem. mayor wells, i am sorry to hear what is happening to your city. >> thank you very much. >> tucker: it is time for the final exam. shannon bream has finally met her match? we may have a ringer. stay tuned, coming up. when you say you need a heart transplant... that's a whole different ballgame. i was in shock. i am very proud of the development of drugs that can prevent the rejection and prevent the recurrence of the original disease. i never felt i was going to die. we know so much about transplantation. and we're living longer. you cannot help but be inspired by the opportunities that a transplant would offer. my donor's mom says "you were meant to carry his story". why people everywhere are upgrading their water filter to zerowater.
start with water that has a lot of dissolved solids. pour it through brita's two-stage filter. dissolved solids remain? what if we filter it over and over? (sighing) oh dear. thank goodness zerowater's five-stage filter gets to all zeroes the first time. so, maybe it's time to upgrade. get more out of your water. get zerowater. so we know how to cover almost galmoanything.hingur water. even a swing set standoff. and we covered it, july first, twenty-fifteen. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
♪ >> tucker: time now for "final exam," where we see which figures in the news have been doing their jobs and paying attention. our first contestant this week, "fox news at night" host, shannon bream, a perfect record. you knew that. a roster of who she has vanquished, brian kilmeade, peter doocy, gillian turner, and our friend griff jenkins. palafox politics editor chris stirewalt, is he up to the task? >> look at this. >> tucker: the winner, if it is chris stirewalt, it's the coveted -- shannon will get the airplane-sized bottle of green champagne. >> i love it. hands on buzzers. i'm going to ask the question.
the first contestant to buzz and gets to answer. each one you get wrong, you lose a point. best of five wins. question one. this is easy. it is winter. the east coast is getting pounded by an extreme weather system which is unleashing blizzard-like conditions. the name of this weather system is characteristically overheated, as is often the case and meteorology. what are the congress weather system? shannon bream? >> grayson. >> tucker: grayson is your answer? >> that is the name of the storm, right? >> tucker: i don't know if that is true. i'm going to have to go to the tape. >> tens of millions americans on the east coast are being pummeled by a winter storm that is being called a bomb cyclone. >> breaking news, a winter bomb cyclone, as it is called, bearing down on 40 million people. >> a so-called bomb cycle and taking aim. >> don't give me that.
>> that bomb cyclone. >> i didn't coin the phrase bomb cyclone. this area of low pressure is going to under erect undergoes something called five bombogenesis. >> tucker: this may be a case of you knowing too much. we're going to have to go with the colloquial term. >> i am out. you said, what is the storm called. what is it called. >> tucker: sorry. >> now i see. >> tucker: you got four more questions. first responders rushed to the property of the president whose property was at? >> bill and hillary clinton. >> tucker: was at bill and hillary clinton? >> firefighters rushing to the home of bill and hillary clinton, a small fire breaking out on the second floor of a secret service facility.
>> but the house is actually known as grayson. [laughter] >> it is the bomba fly bomboge. i can't come back. >> tucker: at cnn under fire for a segment, one of the reporters appearing to smoke marijuana on a party bus. through which kind of device? shannon bream? >> eight bong >> tucker: a bong says shannon bream. is she an expert? i thought maybe i would bring a gas mask with us so i wouldn't get that contact high. what's on the other end of the gas mask? >> a bong. of course, they couldn't stand to see a bong they didn't have any cannabis in it. i don't think this is what a gas mask is used for. but, wow. okay.
new year's day in style, everybody. >> tucker: so the answer we were looking for was gas mask, but as our judges just pointed out, it was a bong. >> called grayson. >> tucker: back at 1-1. okay. next question. 1-0, because i got ripped off. >> tucker: which celebrity host is now in a feud with eric trump after eric trump suggested she was a member of -- celebrity television host in a feud with eric trump, he says she is a member of the deep state. she is a comedian, a comedienne. some people call her the new oprah. i don't. >> whoopi goldberg? >> tucker: is it will be goldberg? >> my name is trending because of this. eric trump suggests that on the
ellen degeneres as part of the deep state. apparently i am part of a secret conspiracy. it is the craziest thing i have seen all week. i saw the movie with the lady having sex with a fish. this is crazier. >> i didn't see that. >> tucker: final question. this will be a fast one, so be ready, okay? you may know the answer. which senator announced he is retiring this year, possibly paving the way for mitt romney to run for his seat? shannon bream? >> orrin hatch. >> oh! >> tucker: that can't be right. orrin hatch retiring? i think it is chris dodd. >> it senator grayson. >> orrin hatch will not seek reelection this year. the 83-year-old lawmaker from utah announcing his retirement after serving since 1977.
>> 1977? were you alive them? >> barely. >> i don't think since he was pulled off the court in the late '70s. never seen a comeback like that. shannon bream, don't feel bad. you get our airplane-sized champagne. it is delicious. chris stirewalt, you really were a worthy opponent. chris grayson, chris grayson. >> tucker: that concludes this week's "final exam." be sure to pay as much attention to the news as shannon bream does and tune in each thursday to see if you can beat her. we'll be right back. ♪
easy thing these days. good night from washington. sean hannity is next live from new york. all right, sean. >> sean: busy news night tonight. welcome to hannity. we do have major breaking news hillary clinton is under investigation. the daily beast reporting that the department of justice has now reopened the investigation into clinton's email server. and john solomon also reporting tonight the fbi is now opening a brand new investigation on the clinton foundation, specifically the fbi is seeking to determine whether or not any pay for play occurred while hillary clinton was serving as yourselves. this is massive breaking news. we'll have more with john solomon and sarah carter exclusively. also tonight, your economy is booming, setting records by the day. but your mainstream media has a sick, twisted obsession with just hating the president. they don't bother telling you. these hapless sick fants in the media try to manufacture crisis after crisis and outdo each other as i told you last night it